Quite frankly, I think the exaggeration is justified.  It is needed to motivate human beings to act, which humanity has historically been sluggish in doing.

I think many people think like you do, even some scientists.  The main problem is that for a complex problem with extremely expensive solutions, acting for the sake of action likely does more harm than good.  And there are other, greater problems in the world which get neglected.  Then, there are ethical issues about falsely announce the end of the world.

Aside from that, people are seeing the effects of climate change in real time now, as cities along the east coast now regularly get flooded during high tide and air quality is much more poor with higher rates of asthma, farms in the middle of the country are underwater and there are massive fires that are getting worse every year, out west.

Are you able to support any of this with accepted science?

Yes, I posted many links.  I'm on several climate/weather forums where real climatologists talk about this alll the time.  One of these is called https://www.americanwx.com.
If you want to get information about this from experts in the field you should read the content on there.  That's where I directly talk to climatologists and weather professionals.  The research stuff I posted here was posted there also.  John Kerry who I quoted earlier was the American representative to the Paris Climate Accord and although he's a politician, he used the information presented in those research papers to assert that we must reach net carbon zero by 2050.  My contacts in the auto industry have already stated that that's their goals too, and that they plan on stopping production of gas/oil powered vehicles by 2040.  The states of New York and California are suing the fossil fuel industry because of its bribing of politicians in Washington to lower emission standards and I suspect the fossil fuel industry will be called to testify in the impeachment hearings because a clear link has been established between Trump, Putin and the fossil fuel industry in propping up oligarchs.  But this is mostly politics and beyond the purview of science (unless we're talking about psychology and the psychopathy of corporations lol.)  I agree with you about pursuing nuclear energy and wished it had been used more vigorously starting decades ago, but whatever we do, we need to strongly regulate the companies that pursue any energy sources.  The fossil fuel cartel's abuse of power and trying to actually seize land from people and using and bribing local police forces to do so should be a lesson to all of us.  What they tried to do to Native Americans was eyeopening for me, and now I've found out it's a widespread problem.

Here was some of the research that was sent to me from climatologists (you can also find it on that climate and weather forum I linked you to, in the climate change subforum- lots of good research in there from professionals and experts in the field.)  The link to air pollution and higher asthma rates is pretty self-explanatory and logical and it's why New York and Florida have banned fossil fuel used in new residences and buildings and new pipelines going forward.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11755-z

The United Nations' synthesis report on the latest climate science information has now been released.

Some excerpts:

Average global temperature for 2015-2019 is on track to be the warmest of any equivalent period on record. It is currently estimated to be 1.1°C above pre-industrial (1850-1900) times and 0.2°C warmer than 2011-2015.

Observations show that global mean sea level rise is accelerating and an overall increase of 26% in ocean acidity since the beginning of the industrial era...

CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use continue to grow by over 1% annually and 2% in 2018 reaching a new high.

Growth of coal emissions resumed in 2017...

Global emissions are not estimated to peak by 2030, let alone by 2020.

Implementing current unconditional NDCs would lead to a global mean temperature rise between 2.9°C and 3.4°C by 2100 relative to pre-industrial levels, and continuing thereafter.

The current level of NDC ambition needs to be roughly tripled for emission reduction to be in line with the 2°C goal and increased fivefold for the 1.5°C goal. Technically it is still possible to bridge the gap...

Heatwaves were the deadliest meteorological hazard in the 2015–2019 period, affecting all continents and setting many new national temperature records. Summer 2019 saw unprecedented wildfires in the Arctic region. In June alone, these fires emitted 50 megatons (Mt) of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This is more than was released by Arctic fires in the same month from 2010 to 2018 put together.

The complete report can be found at:

https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handl ... limsci.pdf


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180970489/

The scientists agree according to this research that achieving net carbon zero by 2050 should be our goal.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180948204/

The oligarchy exposed.

https://bulletin.represent.us/u-s-oliga ... -research/

https://bulletin.represent.us/american- ... democracy/

A-L-E-X wrote:
cities along the east coast now regularly get flooded during high tide

Are you able to support any of this with accepted science?

This one should be the least controversial by far.  It is very well documented and understood.  Parts of Florida are especially vulnerable to it due to the specific geology of the area with porous limestone bedrock.  The sea water percolates through it easily, and the higher high tides are forcing the water table up, causing freshwater flooding inland. This is a unique problem for the area, because a seawall solution will not stop it.  Instead people must build higher, and deal with contaminated groundwater regardless.  

The positive note is that building planners are creating some innovative solutions to it, though how effective these solutions will be in the long term remains to be seen.  There's an excellent documentary about it here:

Sinking Cities: Episode 4: Miami

A-L-E-X wrote:
cities along the east coast now regularly get flooded during high tide

Are you able to support any of this with accepted science?

This one should be the least controversial by far.  It is very well documented and understood.  Parts of Florida are especially vulnerable to it due to the specific geology of the area with porous limestone bedrock.  The sea water percolates through it easily, and the higher high tides are forcing the water table up, causing freshwater flooding inland. This is a unique problem for the area, because a seawall solution will not stop it.  Instead people must build higher, and deal with contaminated groundwater regardless.  

The positive note is that building planners are creating some innovative solutions to it, though how effective these solutions will be in the long term remains to be seen.  There's an excellent documentary about it here:

Sinking Cities: Episode 4: Miami

Yes!  I've also read about creating floating cities in the future.  The recently documented king tides have been coming up higher and higher- and cities like Charleston, SC and Miami, Fl are already planning mitigation strategies.  As for much more flooding rainfalls, even in the interior, that has already been well documented and is occurring, the theory is a warmer arctic results in more blocking and slower moving storms (we also see this with tropical storms and hurricanes, look at the big uptick in rainfall totals).  More and larger firestorms is already well understood in California, the state has even started cutting off power to millions of people to try and lessen the risk of fires.  As for air pollution and higher rates of asthma- thats also well documented- just look at the increase of bad air quality alerts and smog days in and near big cities like Los Angeles and New York.  Part of this is due to higher levels of humidity trapping particulates in the lower atmosphere- JFK set their all time record (by more than 2 fold) for most days with a dew point of 75 or higher last year.  The recent record setting heatwaves, both in the deep South and in Alaska as well as Europe are also well documented.  Also it's good to see a strong movement to get the disgusting plastic in the oceans cleaned up as well as lawsuits to remove landfills.  Plastics are killing sea life by alarming quantities and we've banned it here in NY (I heard it's been banned in California also) as well as banned the usage of real fur and foie gras (which is a French process that bursts the stomachs of ducks.)

Wat these attacks by US conservatives on activists are getting pretty dirty- read this

https://www.americanwx.com/bb/topic/52434-occasional-thoughts-on-climate-change/page/4/

There is an article in there I posted about air pollution and higher rates of violence as well as mass migrations due to climate change from central america to the southern US border because of a 4 year drought.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/greta-thunberg-climate-change-trump-malala-yousafzai-sexism-girls-men-a9121336.html

It's your basic antifeminist fear that the right in the US has always shown, I wonder what they will do when Elizabeth Warren becomes president (which it looks like she might lol.)

Sinking Cities: Episode 4: Miami

Not available in my region due to rights restrictions.  Global sea level rise is a good example for why adaptation should be a priority.  First, we must learn that coastlines are not static, not just on geological timescales, but also on human timescales.  There are local variations of sea level relative to land, there is erosion, and sediments change.  On top of that there are global changes due to changes in climate.  Even if were able to control climate to keep the sea level steady globally, we would still have to adapt.  And according to the IPCC reports, our action against global warming does not make much of a difference, a 30 cm (best estimate) difference by 2100 between the least action and most action scenarios, if I recall correctly.  This means that diverting money from adaption to fairly futile attempts to control climate is not a good idea.

Yes, I posted many links.  I'm on several climate/weather forums where real climatologists talk about this alll the time.

I was more looking for relatively undisputed reviewed literature.  In particular, that climate change effects can include things like "air quality is much more poor with higher rates of asthma" is pretty surprising considering how bad things were before proper regulations (for emissions not related to CO2) were in place.  Whilst you can surely find expanding cities in developing nations with poorer air quality, if global climate change is to blame, you should see a drop in air quality everywhere. I'm also curious how a different climate influences air quality in the first place. 

Even though climate change introduces some challenges, the world even during my lifetime (46 years) has become a much, much better place to live.  People are healthier, life expectancy has gone up quite a bit, extreme poverty has dropped by much, far fewer die from wars and conflicts.  To paint a picture of an increasingly suffering humankind, not in some hypothetical future, but right now, is simply very incorrect.

Sinking Cities: Episode 4: Miami

Not available in my region due to rights restrictions.  Global sea level rise is a good example for why adaptation should be a priority.  First, we must learn that coastlines are not static, not just on geological timescales, but also on human timescales.  There are local variations of sea level relative to land, there is erosion, and sediments change.  On top of that there are global changes due to changes in climate.  Even if were able to control climate to keep the sea level steady globally, we would still have to adapt.  And according to the IPCC reports, our action against global warming does not make much of a difference, a 30 cm (best estimate) difference by 2100 between the least action and most action scenarios, if I recall correctly.  This means that diverting money from adaption to fairly futile attempts to control climate is not a good idea.

Yes, I posted many links.  I'm on several climate/weather forums where real climatologists talk about this alll the time.

I was more looking for relatively undisputed reviewed literature.  In particular, that climate change effects can include things like "air quality is much more poor with higher rates of asthma" is pretty surprising considering how bad things were before proper regulations (for emissions not related to CO2) were in place.  Whilst you can surely find expanding cities in developing nations with poorer air quality, if global climate change is to blame, you should see a drop in air quality everywhere. I'm also curious how a different climate influences air quality in the first place. 

Even though climate change introduces some challenges, the world even during my lifetime (46 years) has become a much, much better place to live.  People are healthier, life expectancy has gone up quite a bit, extreme poverty has dropped by much, far fewer die from wars and conflicts.  To paint a picture of an increasingly suffering humankind, not in some hypothetical future, but right now, is simply very incorrect.

It depends on where you live.  In the United States we have been coddling to the fossil fuel and chemical industries, which is why things here are worse (and that includes income disparity.)  The regulations you speak of- they are simply not followed here, or are being rolled back, at the behest of those industries (thanks to dark money.)  There are over two thousand toxic waste dumps and superfund sites within about 200 miles of my house where corporations have been dumping toxic chemicals which seep into the water supply- not to mention the plastics being dumped into the ocean.  We've banned the use of plastic here, but that doesn't mean others have.  You should look into the extended drought in Central America, where people are mass migrating to the US southern border because of it.  The Trump administration is treating them like prisoners of war, but there is mass starvation going on down there and that's why they are coming here.  That's undisputed.  So is the mass migration of people from islands that are going to be completely underwater or are getting there now (like the islands off the Louisiana coast.)

I didn't mention this in the last post but I should have- the big dead pool of water in the Gulf of Mexico is due to run off of pesticides and fertilizer coming down the Mississippi- those chemicals have created excessive blue green algae (a type of bacteria), we're seeing the same blooms here in the NE and people are being warned to avoid those lakes because they cause skin burns and the chemicals seep in through the skin and cause stomach problems.   Runoff has caused those chemicals to appear in our water supply during the warm months and we dont drink tap water because of it-  I figured that out a few years ago when I began having stomach problems every warm season after drinking tap water.   I spoke with an expert in the field, Dr. Tracy Fanara, who works with the MOTE research lab down in Florida and she explained how bad the blooms have gotten in recent years, and we've started to recommend that people stop using excessive pesticides and fertilizer in their crops as the spring floods have gotten much worse and there's been more run off of these dangerous chemicals not just into the sea and gulf, but also into lakes and streams and rivers.
The idea of achieving net carbon zero by 2050 is a mainstream scientific and industrial position.

Also, being in the middle of an mass extinction- I wouldn't call those times "great."

As far as the higher smog is concerned, yes times are better than they were in the 70s- but things are getting worse now for different reasons than they were bad in the past.  The higher amount of forest fires the West is having now are causing huge problems as noted below:

https://grist.org/article/california-smog-is-getting-worse-again-but-because-of-climate-change-not-cars/

Hospitals have been reporting increased visits from patients seeking treatment for respiratory ailments this summer in Southern California. The culprit? Smog.

Southern California has experienced its worst smog in seven years. Ozone levels have exceeded federal standards on 91 days in 2016, nearly 30 percent more than this time last year, according to the Los Angeles Times. Every day of August has exceeded the federal standard of 70 parts per billion.

Cities like Los Angeles have never been known for making it easier to breathe. Yet as bad as the air currently is, it’s still far better than than it was in the ’70s and ’80s, when LA had 200 smog-filled days a year.  

While emissions from vehicles are usually the culprit behind smog, the reason for this season’s poor air quality has more to do with the particularly hot and dry weather, and an influx in wildfire activity. Ozone regulations and federal fuel efficiency standards for trucks and cars, meanwhile, have helped cities cut pollution.

But in the future, as climate change increases both wildfires and temperatures in the region, it’ll take even greater effort to make Southern California’s air clean again.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-coachella-smog-climate-change-20190412-story.html

Air quality officials will miss a 2019 federal deadline to clean smog in the Coachella Valley, saying the challenges of “hotter summer weather and the threat of climate change” are hampering efforts to slash health-damaging ozone.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District said Friday that because of an increase in smog over the last two years it would seek to downgrade the area’s ozone pollution rating from “severe” to “extreme” — the worst federal classification. The change, if approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, would give the agency five more years to cut Coachella Valley ozone levels below 80 parts per billion.

Though it’s hardly the first pollution-reduction deadline Southern California has busted, the request is notable in highlighting how climate change might be a new front in the war against smog.

Ozone, the lung-searing gas in smog that triggers asthma and other respiratory illnesses, has surged in Southern California in recent years, bucking a decades-long trend of improvement. Air quality officials blame persistent, record-breaking heat and stagnant weather — rather than an increase in emissions — for boosting levels across California and other Western states.

Regulators and scientists say global warming will make smog harder to control because higher temperatures speed up the photochemical process by which pollution from factories, power plants, vehicles and other sources form ozone.

“We do know that the changing climate plays a role in air quality,” South Coast air district spokeswoman Nahal Mogharabi said in an email. “Hotter temperatures and stagnant weather experienced throughout California have directly led to increases in high levels of ozone and fine particulate matter during certain parts of the year.”

Capitalism and the industrial revolution have caused most of these problems and the reason why the fossil fuel industry is being sued, along with the pharmaceutical industry and the chemical industries, is because they covered up research in their greed for profit.  We've banned fracking here because we saw a big rise in earthquakes in places like Oklahoma where it's occurring, as well as banned further pipelines and new gas and oil heating being utilized in new constructions because of the risks associated with them (fires, explosions, etc.)  That's why we're seeing a wave of environmentalism now, to fix the problems caused by the previous generation, thats created a new generation of people who are more obese and unhealthy than they were before, as well as children living near farming communities who are showing up with a higher rate of brain injuries from exposure to chemicals by companies that find their way around regulations through their connections with local politicians and regulatory agencies, who are also being sued.  Our life expectancy has also gone down for the first time in many generations.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la- ... story.html

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/ ... -chemicals

https://grist.org/article/elizabeth-war ... that-mean/

and this from the climate and weather forum

The low sea ice and resulting Arctic amplification is a big reason why Utqiakvik (Barrow) had its latest first freeze on record (9/19 vs. the old record of 9/7) and has a chance of registering its first September with a mean temperature of 40° or above. The current monthly record is 37.7°.

That’s a remarkable stat. Just saw it posted on twitter. Record warmth and high pressure over the Arctic since May.





One other statistic: Utqiagvik had 55 days with low temperatures of 40 or higher. The old record was 32.

And a frost free period of 85 days. Remarkable. One wonders what that's doing to the permafrost this year. Last few years the situation further south (near Fairbanks) has been bad enough that the active layer isn't completely refreezing during the winter, creating a layer of permanent thaw sandwiched in between. A situation which wasn't expected until quite a bit later in the century.

https://www.americanwx.com/bb/topic/486 ... nt-5321035
https://www.americanwx.com/bb/topic/486 ... e/page/56/


Utqiagvik (formerly Barrow) remains on course for a record warm September. It is also increasingly likely to see its first September with a mean temperature of 40.0° or above. Overall, largely on account of low summer sea ice, resulting in Arctic amplification, the area has been warming very rapidly.
Notice the much greater amplitude of the Arctic pressure pattern swings  since 1990. This would seem to match the 2009 corals study.The record summer Arctic dipole pattern from 2007 to 2012 and new lowest extent. Rapid reversal in 2013 and 2014. Then stronger dipole anomalies in 2016 and 2019. Continuation of the long term Arctic sea ice decline with very choppy volatility from year to year.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 101200.htm

Swings In North Atlantic Oscillation Variability Linked To Climate Warming

Anthropogenic (human-related) warming does not appear to be altering whether the NAO is in a positive or negative phase at multi-decadal time scales,” said WHOI paleoclimatologist Konrad Hughen. “It does seem to be increasing variability. Clearly, this has implications for the future.”

“As temperatures get warmer, there’s potential for more violent swings of the NAO — the phases becoming even more positive and even more negative,” Hughen added. “If the NAO locks more into these patterns, intense storms will become more intense and droughts will become more severe.”

At least some research shows that at least parts of the Arctic today are the warmest in at least the last 44,000 years.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 13GL057188

Also, as for what's causing the really bad air quality here in NYC and LI, I can point to the steep increase in dew points, we broke the record by more than double, with 42 days with a dew point higher than 75 at JFK, and the higher humidity levels have been trapping car pollutants and we've had numerous ozone alerts, much moreso than normal.  Allergy seasons have also been extending much farther the last few years and breathing problems are now very common here in the warm season.  We've also seen a steep rise in tropical infections like EEE and West Nile passed by mosquitoes.  A dozen deaths from EEE alone and numerous warnings to not go outside around dusk here.

I don't think there exists many records of air quality going many decades back.  But the changes since the 80's in Europe are quite dramatic.  I recall visiting London back then, and after a few days, if I blew my nose, the tissue would be black with soot.  That is no longer happening.  I still can't see how climate change causes worse air quality.  If climate change means more inversion trapping air in cities, there would be a physical explanation.  But I don't think that is a global trend.

Also, being in the middle of an mass extinction

We've already seen a massive shift in biodiversity and biomass.  Basically, what we need for food dominates, and all else has been greatly reduced, close to extinction to a large degree.  This has nothing to do with climate.  Make a time machine and fetch Darwin, let him go on the same journey again today and ask him what he think is the cause of the dramatic changes he will observe.  Do you really think the answer will be "because the temperature has increased by 0.9 degrees, of course"?  

That’s a remarkable stat.

Here's more for you.  In Longyearbyen, Svalbard, the monthly mean temperature has been above the average for more than 100 consecutive months.  I've personally witnessed the changes over the past 25 years.  The record streak will soon end, however.  Mainly because the climatic reference average will change from the 1961-1990 period (which was significantly colder than the 1931-1960 period) to the warm 1991-2020 period.  Besides, sea ice around Svalbard is likely to increase in the coming decades which is part of a 70 year cyclic event, and that will have a cooling effect.

The Arctic is a very bad place to study global climate trends.  Nowhere else on Earth is the climate more noisy.  Usually if you want to study a certain phenomenon, you try to pick the least noisy environment.

I agree with your opinion @midtskogen

I don't think there exists many records of air quality going many decades back.  But the changes since the 80's in Europe are quite dramatic.  I recall visiting London back then, and after a few days, if I blew my nose, the tissue would be black with soot.  That is no longer happening.  I still can't see how climate change causes worse air quality.  If climate change means more inversion trapping air in cities, there would be a physical explanation.  But I don't think that is a global trend.

Also, being in the middle of an mass extinction

We've already seen a massive shift in biodiversity and biomass.  Basically, what we need for food dominates, and all else has been greatly reduced, close to extinction to a large degree.  This has nothing to do with climate.  Make a time machine and fetch Darwin, let him go on the same journey again today and ask him what he think is the cause of the dramatic changes he will observe.  Do you really think the answer will be "because the temperature has increased by 0.9 degrees, of course"?  

That’s a remarkable stat.

Here's more for you.  In Longyearbyen, Svalbard, the monthly mean temperature has been above the average for more than 100 consecutive months.  I've personally witnessed the changes over the past 25 years.  The record streak will soon end, however.  Mainly because the climatic reference average will change from the 1961-1990 period (which was significantly colder than the 1931-1960 period) to the warm 1991-2020 period.  Besides, sea ice around Svalbard is likely to increase in the coming decades which is part of a 70 year cyclic event, and that will have a cooling effect.

The Arctic is a very bad place to study global climate trends.  Nowhere else on Earth is the climate more noisy.  Usually if you want to study a certain phenomenon, you try to pick the least noisy environment.

That is precisely what I mean, there is more inversion causing more particulate matter to be trapped as well as higher ozone amounts.  Throw in the fact that more people are driving, higher population= more pollution.  I am the same age as you and I can see a huge difference in humidity levels here in NY between the 80s and this decade.   I used to take allergy medication maybe once a year, now I take it every week, outside of the winter.  The air in the mountains is much cleaner and easier to breathe.   Statistically speaking, our rainfall averages have also gotten much higher, from around 40 inches a year, to now regularly over 50 inches a year.  The number of 3" storms has tripled (thats nationwide- data from the weather network), leading to much more flash flooding and the resulting problems with chemicals destroying our waterways.

As for Los Angeles, the connection between lower air quality and climate change is crystal clear- it's directly linked to the higher number of deadly forest fires year after year.


It doesn't have to be a global trend for it to be climate change.  That's a misperception of climate change.  Because of its very nature, some places are much more sensitive to it and will suffer far more damage than other places.  The east coast of the US has been predicted to have a higher rise in sea levels than other areas, as an example.  Ditto the American West and higher number of forest fires affecting air quality.


The issue with mass extinction is linked to all the other things we've been talking about.  The fact is humankind in its inherent greed and desire to overpopulate, has used the planet up- which is why we need a massive shift in what we eat, how we use land, etc.  And the type of farming we do, monotypal farming, is bad for us as well as for the environment, the fact is we rely on a very small number of food sources, so any disease (like the fungus thats been plaguing Central America) will cause huge food shortages.  Thats also been directly linked to climate change and has led to mass migration of refugees to the US southern border.


Our thirty year climate average will shift soon too, however, this wont end the warm streak.  Every decade has been warmer than the previous one, so no matter how recent the decade you use for climate averages, the temperatures will always rise.  That has been the experience here.  You might get an outlier month here or there that's below average, but 9/12 of every year will be above normal.  You can see that even more clearly when you look at it on a global level.


Look at it another way- the glaciers are receding and many/most of them will be gone by 2100.  Greenland and Iceland is experiencing it and holding "glacier funerals."  One of our national parks, Glacier National Park, is talking about changing its name because glaciers will be gone from there within the next few generations or so.

We still haven't addressed coral reef bleaching and what that's doing to the very delicate marine ecosystem and the pollution of plastics.  In addition to that, according to the National Hurricane Center, the warmer sea temperatures are causing an increase in major hurricanes (Cat 3/4/5); this is borne out by the disasters we've seen in recent years.  According to the weather network, climate change has contributed to 768 billion dollars of damage since 2010 alone.

It's very fortunate that the state I live in and several others are very forward-thinking and weaning themselves off of fossil fuels, the projection is we'll be completely done with them by 2050 (or at least achieve net carbon zero, which is what the scientific consensus is now calling for.)  The fact that the fossil fuel industry has been covering up climate change research since the 70s is no surprise, we knew this was happening even back in the 80s, and like other industries, they are now being sued for their corruption by multiple states.

I agree with your opinion @midtskogen

His opinion is just an opinion and not borne out by scientists in the field who actually study climate.  Which is pretty obvious in the links I provided and in personal conversations I've had with scientists in the field.  Also what he said about not wanting to study what's going on in the Arctic is ridiculous and makes no sense- there's a reason why climatologists are studying that region vigorously.  Parts of that region are projected to be ice-free within 20-25 years (for the first time in at least 44,000 years) and the effects of that  will (and has been) propagating southward (not to mention how it's damaging the region's ecosystem.)  Not only that but it's resulted in more blocking which slows down the speed of storms which results in more high precip events- again, this is something we've been seeing, so theory is borne out by facts, as climatologists have been stating.  Thanks for recognizing what he said as just an opinion.

Let's let the people who study this as their profession have the last word:

https://arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Rep ... de-Weather

second report by NOAA

https://arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2018/ArtMID/7878/ArticleID/783/Surface-Air-Temperature

Read those if you want to learn what's going on and these:

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/nope-earth-isnt-cooling/

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2861/arctic-and-antarctic-sea-ice-how-are-they-different/

NASA held a little Q&A session at the bottom of the third link, in the comments section.  

Bob Dilly
Can we stop global warming? Is it true that we have 11 years until extreme weather across the globe?
Like · Reply · 1w

NASA Climate Change
The effects of global warming on the timescale of human lifetimes are irreversible, are happening now and will continue to worsen in decades to come:

“The removal of human-emitted CO2 from the atmosphere by natural processes will take a few hundred thousand years (high confidence). Depending on the RCP scenario considered, about 15 to 40% of emitted CO2 will remain in the atmosphere longer than 1,000 years. This very long time required by sinks to remove anthropogenic CO2 makes climate change caused by elevated CO2 irreversible on human time scale. {Box 6.1}”

https://www.ipcc.ch/.../2018/02/WG1AR5_ ... _FINAL.pdf

But it IS stoppable. Recent public discussions of "12 years" point to having a limited window before some of the worst effects of global warming and climate change become locked-in. In reality, the effects are a continuum and many things like ice sheet mass losses and subsequent sea level rise will still occur for centuries and millennia to come, due to the human burning of fossil fuels to-date. But just as when you're in a well that the stoppage of digging makes the well stop getting deeper, so too is it true that time yet remains to make a difference, for those generations yet to come.

NASA went on to list some mitigation strategies.



Interesting first post btw.....

His opinion is just an opinion and not borne out by scientists in the field who actually study climate.

What are those opinions?  That the air quality isn't dropping because of changed climate?  That the arctic does not have higher natural variability?  That the changes in biodiversity that we've seen over the past centuries are much less caused by climate change than by agriculture and land change?  I think much of the science isn't that much disputed, but what it means for us is much less settled, and that belongs to politics rather than to science.

Also what he said about not wanting to study what's going on in the Arctic is ridiculous and makes no sense- there's a reason why climatologists are studying that region vigorously.  Parts of that region are projected to be ice-free within 20-25 years (for the first time in at least 44,000 years) and the effects of that  will (and has been) propagating southward (not to mention how it's damaging the region's ecosystem.)

There is much to study in the arctic, but it's much harder to extract global trends from climate change in the arctic simply because the climate is more noisy there.  I'm not sure what you're addressing by "first time in at least 44,000 years" and "ice-free within 20-25 years".  It's pretty well understood that there was much less summer sea ice for millennia during the Holocene climate optimum, which can be deduced from beach ridges and driftwood at the northern coast of Greenland, e.g. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110804141706.htm If you mean land ice, that's more complicated as the bigger ice sheets can still be considered remnants of the last ice age, and the reduction/growth also depends on precipitation. Other glaciers that exist today didn't exist during the Holocene climate optimum, e.g. they last formed about 5-6000 years ago.  This is the case for most of the glaciers in Scandinavia and Svalbard.  They may even have formed and melted away more than once during that period.  This is not much disputed.  What these climate variations tell us, and they're easier to find at high latitudes, is that the ecosystems are fairly robust to climate change.  Some species migrate, or in rare cases go extinct due to climatic shifts, but it's not like that the whole ecosystem or the biodiversity is under threat.  When we today do see massive changes in the biodiversity, it's very important to recognise that there are more than one cause, and climate change is absolutely not the most important one.

We live on a dynamic planet.  Change is even one of the drivers of evolution and increased biodiversity.  So anything changed or new doesn't automatically mean it's bad.  Some changes are bad, and to do something about those which are bad, we should not focus so much on what's of least concern.

His opinion is just an opinion and not borne out by scientists in the field who actually study climate.

What are those opinions?  That the air quality isn't dropping because of changed climate?  That the arctic does not have higher natural variability?  That the changes in biodiversity that we've seen over the past centuries are much less caused by climate change than by agriculture and land change?  I think much of the science isn't that much disputed, but what it means for us is much less settled, and that belongs to politics rather than to science.

Also what he said about not wanting to study what's going on in the Arctic is ridiculous and makes no sense- there's a reason why climatologists are studying that region vigorously.  Parts of that region are projected to be ice-free within 20-25 years (for the first time in at least 44,000 years) and the effects of that  will (and has been) propagating southward (not to mention how it's damaging the region's ecosystem.)

There is much to study in the arctic, but it's much harder to extract global trends from climate change in the arctic simply because the climate is more noisy there.  I'm not sure what you're addressing by "first time in at least 44,000 years" and "ice-free within 20-25 years".  It's pretty well understood that there was much less summer sea ice for millennia during the Holocene climate optimum, which can be deduced from beach ridges and driftwood at the northern coast of Greenland, e.g. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110804141706.htm If you mean land ice, that's more complicated as the bigger ice sheets can still be considered remnants of the last ice age, and the reduction/growth also depends on precipitation. Other glaciers that exist today didn't exist during the Holocene climate optimum, e.g. they last formed about 5-6000 years ago.  This is the case for most of the glaciers in Scandinavia and Svalbard.  They may even have formed and melted away more than once during that period.  This is not much disputed.  What these climate variations tell us, and they're easier to find at high latitudes, is that the ecosystems are fairly robust to climate change.  Some species migrate, or in rare cases go extinct due to climatic shifts, but it's not like that the whole ecosystem or the biodiversity is under threat.  When we today do see massive changes in the biodiversity, it's very important to recognise that there are more than one cause, and climate change is absolutely not the most important one.

We live on a dynamic planet.  Change is even one of the drivers of evolution and increased biodiversity.  So anything changed or new doesn't automatically mean it's bad.  Some changes are bad, and to do something about those which are bad, we should not focus so much on what's of least concern.

As I recommended earlier, you should read the NASA and NOAA links I posted as well as visit that climate forum.  Those are far more intelligent professionals than either you or I, and have an educated background in the field.  The NASA professional who hosted the Q&A cited IPCC research to reiterate we have until 2030 to make changes before we get irreversible consequences.  He also clarified that even if we make those changes, the negative effects of climate change will persist for centuries.  They also lament that the change to nuclear has been so slow.  Back in the 80s, I had thought we would even have nuclear powered cars by now.  The only rational reason not to have widespread nuclear power is fear of terrorism (but I'm sure nuclear installations could be guarded well enough to prevent that.)
This discussion involves politics, economics and science (which is why it's good that this is an off topic thread!)  And in the articles, the climatologists showed the link between lower air quality and the burning of fossil fuels, namely more cars on the road as well as more forest fires.  The biodiversity issue we've been talking about and climate change are linked to each other, though that does not mean the relationship is cause and effect.  Rather both are caused by the same thing- too many people on the planet.  If you asked Darwin, thats what he would say, there are way too many humans on the planet to maintain a healthy ecosystem.  And thats exactly what NOAA has said.  Also, if you want to see a causal relationship between climate change and biodiversity you just have to look at coral reef bleaching.  The Great Barrier Reef will be gone in a generation or so, and that will be a catastrophe for the marine ecosystem that depends on it.  And the plastic garbage in the oceans is causing sea birds and fish to die en masse- but at least with more attention we are starting to clean it up and banning plastic around here.  That's progress thanks to the greater availability of information!
About the Arctic, yes we've had warm and cold periods before, but none happened as quickly as this one did- because those were natural and this one is human-forced.  The quickness of its occurrence is what makes it much worse.  In the NASA links I posted it illustrates how changes there propagate southward to change the weather patterns in the temperate regions.  Also, the retreat and decreasing coverage of the glaciers in North America, Greenland and Iceland is not disputed.  When climatologists visit there, they see barren land, rocks, etc., where there were formerly large glaciers, with ice only remaining at the highest points on the ones that are retreating most quickly.
As far as the oceans warming leading to more and more powerful tropical cyclones, that's not disputed either.  Research has shown not only more intense TCs, but an extended length to the TC season.  Mitigating these disasters will save us billions of dollars, because thats how much damage they cause (and the cost of their damage is rapidly increasing.)
I dont even say that climate change causes everything, because there is one supreme cause to everything else, including climate change- and that is, there are way too many humans on the planet.  I think Darwin would say that too and point to what happens when one species dominates the entire planet.  Change is actually a good thing, but I prefer natural changes over humanity-caused ones.  And when I say good- I mean for the entire planet, not just for humanity.  Something can be good, if it's something that's good for the entire planet, even if it's bad for humanity, which is just one species.  With that said, the faster we adopt newer technologies like nuclear, the better.  New technology is the one area where I feel like we are better off (and the information age that is has spawned) over the 80s.  Even though I cant drink water from the tap anymore during the warm months and have bad seasonal allergies that I didn't use to have before, at least I can research it online and find out why it's happening.

I found more research from my climate forum for you to read:

Supraglacial lakes are important to ice sheet mass balance because their development and drainage has been linked to changes in ice flow velocity and ice shelf disintegration. However, little is known about their distribution on the world’s largest ice sheet in East Antarctica. Here, we use ~5 million km2 of high-resolution satellite imagery to identify >65,000 lakes (>1,300 km2) that formed around the peak of the melt season in January 2017. Lakes occur in most marginal areas where they typically develop at low elevations (<100 m) and on low surface slopes (<1°), but they can exist 500 km inland and at elevations >1500 m. We find that lakes often cluster a few kilometres down-ice from grounding lines and ~60% (>80% by area) develop on ice shelves, including some potentially vulnerable to collapse driven by lake-induced hydro-fracturing. This suggests that parts of the ice sheet may be highly sensitive to climate warming.


Excerpt from discussion:

Our findings of widespread development of SGLs on floating ice could provide either a test, or constraint, for some of those models, and clearly indicate that some regions of the EAIS may be closer to the threshold of instability than previously thought.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-50343-5

Like
 Quote

https://www.americanwx.com/bb/topic/525 ... ice-sheet/

https://phys.org/news/2019-03-ocean-hea ... worse.html

Invisible to people but deadly to marine life, ocean heatwaves have damaged ecosystems across the globe and are poised to become even more destructive, according to the first study to measure worldwide impacts with a single yardstick.

The number of marine heatwave days has increased by more than 50 percent since the mid-20th century, researchers reported in the journal Nature Climate Change.


As manmade global warming heats the planet, oceans have absorbed some 90 percent of the extra heat generated.

Without that heat sponge, air temperatures would be intolerably higher.

Even if humanity does manage to cap global warming at "well below" 2C (3.6 F), as called for in the Paris climate treaty, marine heatwaves will sharply increase in frequency, intensity and duration, earlier research has shown.

1x1.gif Explore further: Climate change multiplies harmful marine heatwaves (Update)

More information: Dan A. Smale et al. Marine heatwaves threaten global biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services, Nature Climate Change (2019). DOI: 10.1038/s41558-019-0412-1 

Journal reference: Nature Climate Change search and more info



Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-03-ocean-hea ... e.html#jCp

The number of days marked by potentially destructive ocean heatwaves has doubled in 35 years, and will multiply another five-fold at current rates of climate change, scientists warned Wednesday.

Even if humanity does manage to cap global warming "well below" two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), as called for in the Paris climate treaty, marine heatwaves will sharply increase in frequency, intensity and duration, they reported in the journal Nature.

Compared to hot spells over land, which have claimed tens of thousands of lives since the start of the century, ocean heatwaves have received scant scientific attention.

But sustained spikes in sea-surface temperature—typically to a depth of several metres—can also have devastating consequences.

A 10-week marine heatwave near western Australia in 2011, for example, shattered an entire ecosystem and permanently pushed commercial fish species into colder waters.

Another ocean hot spell off the coast of California warmed waters 6 C (10.8 F) and lasted for more than a year. Known at "The Blob", it generated toxic algae blooms, caused the closure of crab fisheries, and led to the death of sea lions, whales and sea birds.

"Marine heatwaves have already become longer-lasting and more frequent, extensive and intense in the past few decades," lead author Thomas Frolicher, an environmental physicist at the University of Bern, Switzerland, told AFP.

"This trend will accelerate in the future under further global warming."

Coral reefs—which cover less than one percent of the ocean's surface but support a quarter of marine species—are especially vulnerable to warming waters.

Recent spikes in tropical and sub-tropical sea surface temperatures, magnified by an especially potent El Nino, have triggered an unprecedented mass bleaching of corals, affecting 75 percent of global reefs.

"Until now, the corals were often able to recover from such bleaching events," said Frolicher.

"However, if the intervals between these events becomes shorter, the corals will no longer be able to regenerate and irreversible damage can be expected."

"This can lead to a complete change in the ecosystems," he added.

 
https://phys.org/news/2018-08-sea-marin ... dlife.html


https://phys.org/journals/nature-climate-change/

Emissions growth in United States, Asia fueled record carbon levels in 2018
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/03 ... evels-2018

Global carbon levels reached a record high last year, as surging demand for fossil fuels in the United States and Asia sent emissions soaring, the International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris said today.

The 33.1 gigatons of energy-related carbon dioxide reported in 2018 represents a 1.7% increase over the previous year. It also means emissions have risen in each of the first two full years since the signing of the Paris climate agreement, leaving the world far short of the 26% to 28% cut in emissions targeted by 2025.

We see that there is a growing disconnect between those calls and what is happening in the real markets,” IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said in a call announcing the findings. “Once again, we have a major increase in global CO2 emissions, which brings us further to reach the climate targets which were established by several countries internationally.”

https://www.eenews.net/assets/2019/03/2 ... _cw_01.pdf

https://www.americanwx.com/bb/topic/509 ... /#comments

https://www.americanwx.com/bb/topic/525 ... -released/


The United Nations' synthesis report on the latest climate science information has now been released.

Some excerpts:

Average global temperature for 2015-2019 is on track to be the warmest of any equivalent period on record. It is currently estimated to be 1.1°C above pre-industrial (1850-1900) times and 0.2°C warmer than 2011-2015.

Observations show that global mean sea level rise is accelerating and an overall increase of 26% in ocean acidity since the beginning of the industrial era...

CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use continue to grow by over 1% annually and 2% in 2018 reaching a new high.

Growth of coal emissions resumed in 2017...

Global emissions are not estimated to peak by 2030, let alone by 2020.

Implementing current unconditional NDCs would lead to a global mean temperature rise between 2.9°C and 3.4°C by 2100 relative to pre-industrial levels, and continuing thereafter.

The current level of NDC ambition needs to be roughly tripled for emission reduction to be in line with the 2°C goal and increased fivefold for the 1.5°C goal. Technically it is still possible to bridge the gap...

Heatwaves were the deadliest meteorological hazard in the 2015–2019 period, affecting all continents and setting many new national temperature records. Summer 2019 saw unprecedented wildfires in the Arctic region. In June alone, these fires emitted 50 megatons (Mt) of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This is more than was released by Arctic fires in the same month from 2010 to 2018 put together.

The complete report can be found at:

https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handl ... limsci.pdf

Excerpts:

Arctic sea ice freezes each winter after a long summer melt. But surprising warmth during the Arctic winter and spring hampered its build-up — setting the stage for this summer’s dramatic ice loss.

The dynamic was especially apparent in the Bering Sea. “From about January to May the sea ice in the Bering Sea just didn’t happen,” says Alice Bradley, a polar scientist at Williams College in Williamstown, Massachusetts. “We haven’t seen that before.” A low-pressure weather system hovered over the sea for much of February, funnelling warm air from the south and pushing the little ice that did manage to form into northern waters.

Throughout the spring and summer, Arctic sea ice melted away faster than it usually does in areas such as the Beaufort Sea and the central Arctic Ocean. Ice extent and volume hit record monthly lows in July, and by early August there was no sea ice within 240 kilometres of the Alaskan coast...

Between water melting off the ice sheet’s surface and breaking off into icebergs, Greenland likely contributed a little over 1.5 millimetres to global sea-level rise this year, according to polar scientist Xavier Fettweis at the University of Liège in Belgium. When researchers eventually compare the mass lost during this summer’s melt to the mass gained during winter snowfall, Greenland is likely to come out as having lost at least as much in 2019 — or even more — than in the extreme year of 2012.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02653-x

you should read the NASA and NOAA links I posted as well as visit that climate forum.

I have, and they don't say anything unreasonable: The world has warmed over the past 100-150 years, and there are mechanisms which could mean more extreme weather events under the current and projected climate.  And as always they are vague about the future.  Exactly how much the world will warm is not known, nor what a frequency increase of extreme events will be.  We don't know, but we can point to trends.  If a given place experiences an extreme weather event every 12 months on average, and will experience extreme events every 11 months or 10 months instead in the future (just to measure such a change with statistical confidence will take many decades), it's not the end of nature and human civilisation.  My point is not that humans do not affect the climate, but that the effects are no big deal from an environmental point of view.  There are far greater threats to nature than climate change.  It's not climate change that has converted land into fields, pasture and concrete.  It's not climate change that fills the oceans with plastic and garbage.  It's not climate change that has hunted species to near extinction.

Humans influence nature in many ways.  Many of them in ways that are not good, but not all of them are catastrophic.  Take light pollution.  It's almost everywhere in the world.  It affects wildlife.  I don't like it.  But it's not the end of the world.  Whilst it can be easily proven than it's caused by human activity, that there are many examples of how it affects wildlife in bad ways, and that the problem is increasing, it doesn't mean that I can say that we're all going to die unless we do something about it.  That would be silly. The consequences of climate change get wildly exaggerated.  And this climate hypochondria divert resources away from where they would be for better use.

you should read the NASA and NOAA links I posted as well as visit that climate forum.

I have, and they don't say anything unreasonable: The world has warmed over the past 100-150 years, and there are mechanisms which could mean more extreme weather events under the current and projected climate.  And as always they are vague about the future.  Exactly how much the world will warm is not known, nor what a frequency increase of extreme events will be.  We don't know, but we can point to trends.  If a given place experiences an extreme weather event every 12 months on average, and will experience extreme events every 11 months or 10 months instead in the future (just to measure such a change with statistical confidence will take many decades), it's not the end of nature and human civilisation.  My point is not that humans do not affect the climate, but that the effects are no big deal from an environmental point of view.  There are far greater threats to nature than climate change.  It's not climate change that has converted land into fields, pasture and concrete.  It's not climate change that fills the oceans with plastic and garbage.  It's not climate change that has hunted species to near extinction.

Humans influence nature in many ways.  Many of them in ways that are not good, but not all of them are catastrophic.  Take light pollution.  It's almost everywhere in the world.  It affects wildlife.  I don't like it.  But it's not the end of the world.  Whilst it can be easily proven than it's caused by human activity, that there are many examples of how it affects wildlife in bad ways, and that the problem is increasing, it doesn't mean that I can say that we're all going to die unless we do something about it.  That would be silly. The consequences of climate change get wildly exaggerated.  And this climate hypochondria divert resources away from where they would be for better use.

Light pollution is one of my pet peeves which I detest- because I have two homes I have a unique opportunity to test its effects.  Near the city, I sleep maybe 3-4 hrs a night because of it, get constant headaches and am generally unhealthy.  In my other home, in the mountains, I sleep much more deeply, 8-10 hours a night, breathe much better, blood pressure is much lower, no headaches, etc.  The differences are stark in both locations even during the same week!
I remember in the light pollution thread we talked about higher rates of cancer because light pollution induced lower sleep levels also block the release of melatonin.  There is a myriad of research showing light pollution increases the risk of cancer by about 20-30%.
This is yet another effect of a higher and more densely populated humanity- lower quality of life in and near cities.  But it's not like we aren't doing anything about it.  I've seen the advent of smart lighting, where lights are pointed downward and lights get dimmer after 11 PM.  Thats good not only for our health, but also saves energy!  Crime does not increase in darker environments anyway- thats another huge misconception.
In the research thread I quoted, they mentioned that usage of fossil fuels is increasing by around 5% by nations like India, China and the US and that is offsetting the increase in solar power (30%) and wind (12%).  The problem is we've also seen a decrease in nuclear usage by the same amount as the increase in wind, and if you allocated that fossil fuel usage increase more towards nuclear, you wouldn't continue to see such a large increase in carbon dioxide and methane going into our atmosphere and into our seas causing disruption of the ecosystem of both marine and land life.  We also need to lower consumption of meat, particularly in the US, where animal farming is so extensive that if the rest of the world consumed as much meat, we would have run out of fresh water a decade or more ago.  The amount of emissions by the animal farming industry exceeds that of all nations besides the US and China.  I focus on many different ways in which humanity messes up its environment- the fossil fuel industry is just one aspect.  We also concentrate on the chemical and food industries and how they dump toxic chemicals into superfund sites which also increases the amount of cancer and even brain damage from pesticides and fertilizers causing dead zones to show up in bodies of water.  And also the usage of chemicals in food that actually causes certain kinds of food to become addictive and is driving the American obesity epidemic as well as the diabetes epidemic caused by excessive sugar consumption as well as the toxicity of sugar substitutes, which are just as bad as sugar itself.  All of these industries have held back or covered up research for many decades, which is just coming to light.  And the opioid epidemic is another example of an industry covering up research, much like the tobacco industry did, and not coincidentally, all of these industries now face multiple lawsuits (In addition to the ones they are already facing for price fixing of life saving drugs, which make them far more expensive than they should be.)
Anyway getting back to the energy discussion......  Right now about two thirds of our energy generation comes from fossil fuels vs alternatives, by 2030 that is projected to flip to two thirds alternatives and one third fossil fuel, and finally net carbon zero by 2050.  That doesn't mean no fossil fuel usage, it means input will be roughly equivalent to output.
excerpt:
Surging energy consumption fueled by strong economic growth in the United States and Asia was the primary cause of the emissions spike, the agency said. Global energy consumption was up 2.3% in 2018, roughly double the average annual growth rate since 2010. Fossil fuels met almost 70% of the new demand for the second year running, with demand for natural gas especially strong.

Global natural gas consumption was up 4.6%, while oil rose 1.3% and coal increased 0.7%. China, India, and the United States accounted for 70% of all energy demand and 85% of the net increase in emissions, IEA reported.

Robert Jackson, a professor who tracks energy and climate policy at Stanford University, said the findings reflect the confluence of several long-term trends that could prod emissions even higher in the future.

While coal use is declining in the United States and Europe, coal consumption is increasing in Asia, where governments have turned to the fuel to power economic development efforts. Strong economic growth in India saw coal consumption increase by roughly 5%, while coal generation was up 5.3% in China, according to IEA figures.

At the same time, growing oil and natural gas use in the United States has offset emissions reductions associated with coal’s decline in America, Jackson said.

“I don’t see global emissions dropping anytime soon,” Jackson said. “We had three years where global emissions were essentially flat. 2017 was a slight uptick. We wondered if it was a blip. It’s not. This increase in global emissions is real and more difficult to address than I expected.”

There were some positives in the report for climate hawks, said Nathan Hultman, director of the University of Maryland’s Center for Global Sustainability in College Park and a former Obama administration official. Solar deployment increased by more than 30% on the year, while wind was up 12%. Improvements in energy efficiency rates fell from 1.9% in 2018 to 1.3% in 2018, the fourth consecutive year of decline, but still were the largest source of global carbon abatement.

The problem is those gains were offset by growing demand for fossil fuels, he said.

“You have the solutions at hand,” Hultman said. “They need to be deployed more quickly, and this is what happens when you don’t.”

In the United States, natural gas demand spiked 10%, or by 10 billion cubic meters, an increase roughly equivalent to the gas consumption of the United Kingdom. That spike was complemented by strong demand for oil, especially from the petrochemical sector. American oil demand was up by 540,000 barrels per day in 2018, the largest increase in the world. That resulted in a 3.1% increase in U.S. carbon emissions.

I'm not a big fan of wind and sun power.  It surely has its niches and applications, but as replacement for fossil fuel it's bad.  It takes too much space, and we've basically run out of space on Earth if we still want to have a fair amount of nature left.  Carbon emissions will continue to be high until the world does away with the nuclear taboo.  It may take a while.  And if we became more factual about these matters and had less of "we all gonna die unless we do something [symbolic probably]" hysteria, things could even speed up.

I'm not a big fan of wind and sun power.  It surely has its niches and applications, but as replacement for fossil fuel it's bad.  It takes too much space, and we've basically run out of space on Earth if we still want to have a fair amount of nature left.  Carbon emissions will continue to be high until the world does away with the nuclear taboo.  It may take a while.  And if we became more factual about these matters and had less of "we all gonna die unless we do something [symbolic probably]" hysteria, things could even speed up.

How would we manage nuclear waste and keep meltdowns from being so deadly? You can't just strap waste to rockets, that would just be too expensive.